On 12/08/12 06:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Call xfs_alloc_file_space or xfs_free_file_space directly from
xfs_file_fallocate instead of going through xfs_change_file_space.
This simplified the code by removing the unessecary marshalling of the
arguments into an xfs_flock64_t structure and allows removing checks that
are already done in the VFS code.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig<hch@xxxxxx>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c | 39 ++----------------------
fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.h | 3 +
3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
patched code looks like:
STATIC long
xfs_file_fallocate(
struct file *file,
int mode,
loff_t offset,
loff_t len)
{
struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
struct xfs_trans *tp;
bool setprealloc = false;
long error;
loff_t new_size = 0;
if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
return -EINVAL;
if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
error = xfs_free_file_space(ip, offset, len);
if (error)
goto out_unlock;
} else {
^^^^^^^^^ vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
if (!(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) &&
offset + len > i_size_read(inode)) {
new_size = offset + len;
error = -inode_newsize_ok(inode, new_size);
if (error)
goto out_unlock;
}
Since there is only the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE or FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE
bit set and the if statement makes them mutually exclusive, the block
highlighted should be for the FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE and shouldn't the
comparison would never be true here? Shouldn't it be for the
FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE block?
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
